Survey of C/C++ backtrace methods
In this answer I will try to run a single benchmark for a bunch of solutions to see which one runs faster, while also considering other points such as features and portability.
| Tool |
Time / call |
Line number |
Function name |
C++ demangling |
Recompile |
Signal safe |
As string |
C |
C++23 <stacktrace> GCC 12.1 |
7 us |
y |
y |
y |
y |
n |
y |
n |
Boost 1.74 stacktrace() |
5 us |
y |
y |
y |
y |
n |
y |
n |
Boost 1.74 stacktrace::safe_dump_to |
|
|
|
|
|
y (deprecated) |
n |
n |
glibc backtrace_symbols_fd |
25 us |
n |
-rdynamic |
hacks |
y |
n |
n |
y |
glibc backtrace_symbols |
21 us |
n |
-rdynamic |
hacks |
y |
n |
y |
y |
| GDB scripting |
600 us |
y |
y |
y |
n |
y |
n |
y |
| GDB code injection |
|
|
|
|
n |
|
n |
y |
| libunwind |
|
|
|
|
y |
|
|
|
| libdwfl |
4 ms |
n |
|
|
y |
|
|
|
| libbacktrace |
|
|
|
|
y |
|
|
|
| cpptrace |
|
y |
y |
y |
n |
y |
y |
y |
Empty cells mean "TODO", not "no".
us: microsecond
Line number: shows actual line number, not just function name + a memory address.
It is usually possible to recover the line number from an address manually after the fact with addr2line. But it is a pain.
Recompile: requires recompiling the program to get your traces. Not recompiling is better!
Signal safe: crucial for the important uses case of "getting a stack trace in case of segfault": How to automatically generate a stacktrace when my program crashes
As string: you get the stack trace as a string in the program itself, as opposed to e.g. just printing to stdout. Usually implies not signal safe, as we don't know the size of the stack trace string size in advance, and therefore requires malloc which is not async signal safe.
C: does it work on a plain-C project (yes, there are still poor souls out there), or is C++ required?
Test setup
All benchmarks will run the following
main.cpp
#include <cstdlib> // strtoul
#include <mystacktrace.h>
void my_func_2(void) {
print_stacktrace(); // line 6
}
void my_func_1(double f) {
(void)f;
my_func_2();
}
void my_func_1(int i) {
(void)i;
my_func_2(); // line 16
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
long long unsigned int n;
if (argc > 1) {
n = std::strtoul(argv[1], NULL, 0);
} else {
n = 1;
}
for (long long unsigned int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
my_func_1(1); // line 27
}
}
This input is designed to test C++ name demangling since my_func_1(int) and my_func_1(float) are necessarily mangled as a way to implement C++ function overload.
We differentiate between the benchmarks by using different -I includes to point to different implementations of print_stacktrace().
Each benchmark is done with a command of form:
time ./stacktrace.out 100000 &>/dev/null
The number of iterations is adjusted for each implementation to produce a total runtime of the order of 1s for that benchmark.
-O0 is used on all tests below unless noted. Stack traces may be irreparably mutilated by certain optimizations. Tail call optimization is a notable example of that: What is tail call optimization? There's nothing we can do about it.
C++23 <stacktrace>
This method was previously mentioned at: https://mcmap.net/q/64721/-how-to-print-a-stack-trace-whenever-a-certain-function-is-called please consider upvoting that answer.
This is the best solution... it's portable, fast, shows line numbers and demangles C++ symbols. This option will displace every other alternative as soon as it becomes more widely available, with the exception perhaps only of GDB for one-offs without the need or recompilation.
cpp20_stacktrace/mystacktrace.h
#include <iostream>
#include <stacktrace>
void print_stacktrace() {
std::cout << std::stacktrace::current();
}
GCC 12.1.0 from Ubuntu 22.04 does not have support compiled in, so for now I built it from source as per: How to edit and re-build the GCC libstdc++ C++ standard library source? and set --enable-libstdcxx-backtrace=yes, and it worked!
Compile with:
g++ -O0 -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++23 -o cpp20_stacktrace.out main.cpp -lstdc++_libbacktrace
Sample output:
0# print_stacktrace() at cpp20_stacktrace/mystacktrace.h:5
1# my_func_2() at /home/ciro/main.cpp:6
2# my_func_1(int) at /home/ciro/main.cpp:16
3# at /home/ciro/main.cpp:27
4# at :0
5# at :0
6# at :0
7#
If we try to use GCC 12.1.0 from Ubuntu 22.04:
sudo apt install g++-12
g++-12 -ggdb3 -O2 -std=c++23 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -o stacktrace.out stacktrace.cpp -lstdc++_libbacktrace
It fails with:
stacktrace.cpp: In function ‘void my_func_2()’:
stacktrace.cpp:6:23: error: ‘std::stacktrace’ has not been declared
6 | std::cout << std::stacktrace::current();
| ^~~~~~~~~~
Checking build options with:
g++-12 -v
does not show:
--enable-libstdcxx-backtrace=yes
so it wasn't compiled in. Bibliography:
It does not fail on the include because the header file:
/usr/include/c++/12
has a feature check:
#if __cplusplus > 202002L && _GLIBCXX_HAVE_STACKTRACE
Boost stacktrace
The library has changed quite a lot around Ubuntu 22.04, so make sure your version matches: Boost stack-trace not showing function names and line numbers
The library is pretty much superseded by the more portable C++23 implementation, but remains a very good option for those that are not at that standard version yet, but already have a "Boost clearance".
Documented at: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_66_0/doc/html/stacktrace/getting_started.html#stacktrace.getting_started.how_to_print_current_call_stack
Tested on Ubuntu 22.04, boost 1.74.0, you should do:
boost_stacktrace/mystacktrace.h
#include <iostream>
#define BOOST_STACKTRACE_LINK
#include <boost/stacktrace.hpp>
void print_stacktrace(void) {
std::cout << boost::stacktrace::stacktrace();
}
On Ubuntu 19.10 boost 1.67.0 to get the line numbers we had to instead:
#include <iostream>
#define BOOST_STACKTRACE_USE_ADDR2LINE
#include <boost/stacktrace.hpp>
void print_stacktrace(void) {
std::cout << boost::stacktrace::stacktrace();
}
which would call out to the addr2line executable and be 1000x slower than the newer Boost version.
The package libboost-stacktrace-dev did not exist at all on Ubuntu 16.04.
The rest of this section considers only the Ubuntu 22.04, boost 1.74 behaviour.
Compile:
sudo apt-get install libboost-stacktrace-dev
g++ -O0 -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++11 -o boost_stacktrace.out main.cpp -lboost_stacktrace_backtrace
Sample output:
0# print_stacktrace() at boost_stacktrace/mystacktrace.h:7
1# my_func_2() at /home/ciro/main.cpp:7
2# my_func_1(int) at /home/ciro/main.cpp:17
3# main at /home/ciro/main.cpp:26
4# __libc_start_call_main at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:58
5# __libc_start_main at ../csu/libc-start.c:379
6# _start in ./boost_stacktrace.out
Note that the lines are off by one line. It was suggested in the comments that this is because the following instruction address is being considered.
Boost stacktrace header only
What the BOOST_STACKTRACE_LINK does is to require -lboost_stacktrace_backtrace at link time, so we imagine without that it will just work. This would be a good option for devs who don't have the "Boost clearance" to just add as one offs to debug.
TODO unfortunately it didn't so well for me:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/stacktrace.hpp>
void print_stacktrace(void) {
std::cout << boost::stacktrace::stacktrace();
}
then:
g++ -O0 -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++11 -o boost_stacktrace_header_only.out main.cpp
contains the overly short output:
0# 0x000055FF74AFB601 in ./boost_stacktrace_header_only.out
1# 0x000055FF74AFB66C in ./boost_stacktrace_header_only.out
2# 0x000055FF74AFB69C in ./boost_stacktrace_header_only.out
3# 0x000055FF74AFB6F7 in ./boost_stacktrace_header_only.out
4# 0x00007F0176E7BD90 in /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
5# __libc_start_main in /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6
6# 0x000055FF74AFB4E5 in ./boost_stacktrace_header_only.out
which we can't even use with addr2line. Maybe we have to pass some other define from: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_80_0/doc/html/stacktrace/configuration_and_build.html ?
Tested on Ubuntu 22.04. boost 1.74.
Boost boost::stacktrace::safe_dump_to
This is an interesting alternative to boost::stacktrace::stacktrace as it writes the stack trace in a async signal safe manner to a file, which makes it a good option for automatically dumping stack traces on segfaults which is a super common use case: How to automatically generate a stacktrace when my program crashes
Documented at: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/doc/html/boost/stacktrace/safe_dump_1_3_38_7_6_2_1_6.html
TODO get it to work. All I see each time is a bunch of random bytes. My attempt:
boost_stacktrace_safe/mystacktrace.h
#include <unistd.h>
#define BOOST_STACKTRACE_LINK
#include <boost/stacktrace.hpp>
void print_stacktrace(void) {
boost::stacktrace::safe_dump_to(0, 1024, STDOUT_FILENO);
}
Sample output:
1[FU1[FU"2[FU}2[FUm1@n10[FU
Changes drastically each time, suggesting it is random memory addresses.
Tested on Ubuntu 22.04, boost 1.74.0.
glibc backtrace
This method is quite portable as it comes with glibc itself. Documented at: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.html
Tested on Ubuntu 22.04, glibc 2.35.
glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd/mystacktrace.h
#include <execinfo.h> /* backtrace, backtrace_symbols_fd */
#include <unistd.h> /* STDOUT_FILENO */
void print_stacktrace(void) {
size_t size;
enum Constexpr { MAX_SIZE = 1024 };
void *array[MAX_SIZE];
size = backtrace(array, MAX_SIZE);
backtrace_symbols_fd(array, size, STDOUT_FILENO);
}
Compile with:
g++ -O0 -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -rdynamic -std=c++11 -o glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd.out main.cpp
Sample output with -rdynamic:
./glibc_backtrace_symbols.out(_Z16print_stacktracev+0x47) [0x556e6a131230]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols.out(_Z9my_func_2v+0xd) [0x556e6a1312d6]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols.out(_Z9my_func_1i+0x14) [0x556e6a131306]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols.out(main+0x58) [0x556e6a131361]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x29d90) [0x7f175e7bdd90]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0x80) [0x7f175e7bde40]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols.out(_start+0x25) [0x556e6a131125]
Sample output without -rdynamic:
./glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd_no_rdynamic.out(+0x11f0)[0x556bd40461f0]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd_no_rdynamic.out(+0x123c)[0x556bd404623c]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd_no_rdynamic.out(+0x126c)[0x556bd404626c]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd_no_rdynamic.out(+0x12c7)[0x556bd40462c7]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x29d90)[0x7f0da2b70d90]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0x80)[0x7f0da2b70e40]
./glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd_no_rdynamic.out(+0x10e5)[0x556bd40460e5]
To get the line numbers without -rdynamic we can use addr2line:
addr2line -C -e glibc_backtrace_symbols_fd_no_rdynamic.out 0x11f0 0x123c 0x126c 0x12c7
addr2line cannot unfortunately handle the function name + offset in function format of when we are not using -rdynamic, e.g. _Z9my_func_2v+0xd.
GDB can however:
gdb -nh -batch -ex 'info line *(_Z9my_func_2v+0xd)' -ex 'info line *(_Z9my_func_1i+0x14)' glibc_backtrace_symbols.out
Line 7 of "main.cpp" starts at address 0x12d6 <_Z9my_func_2v+13> and ends at 0x12d9 <_Z9my_func_1d>.
Line 17 of "main.cpp" starts at address 0x1306 <_Z9my_func_1i+20> and ends at 0x1309 <main(int, char**)>.
A helper to make it more bearable:
addr2lines() (
perl -ne '$m = s/(.*).*\(([^)]*)\).*/gdb -nh -q -batch -ex "info line *\2" \1/;print $_ if $m' | bash
)
Usage:
xsel -b | addr2lines
glibc backtrace_symbols
A version of backtrace_symbols_fd that returns a string rather than printing to a file handle.
glibc_backtrace_symbols/mystacktrace.h
#include <execinfo.h> /* backtrace, backtrace_symbols */
#include <stdio.h> /* printf */
void print_stacktrace(void) {
char **strings;
size_t i, size;
enum Constexpr { MAX_SIZE = 1024 };
void *array[MAX_SIZE];
size = backtrace(array, MAX_SIZE);
strings = backtrace_symbols(array, size);
for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
printf("%s\n", strings[i]);
free(strings);
}
glibc backtrace with C++ demangling hack 1: -export-dynamic + dladdr
I couldn't find a simple way to automatically demangle C++ symbols with glibc backtrace.
Adapted from: https://gist.github.com/fmela/591333/c64f4eb86037bb237862a8283df70cdfc25f01d3
This is a "hack" because it requires changing the ELF with -export-dynamic.
glibc_ldl.cpp
#include <dlfcn.h> // for dladdr
#include <cxxabi.h> // for __cxa_demangle
#include <cstdio>
#include <string>
#include <sstream>
#include <iostream>
// This function produces a stack backtrace with demangled function & method names.
std::string backtrace(int skip = 1)
{
void *callstack[128];
const int nMaxFrames = sizeof(callstack) / sizeof(callstack[0]);
char buf[1024];
int nFrames = backtrace(callstack, nMaxFrames);
char **symbols = backtrace_symbols(callstack, nFrames);
std::ostringstream trace_buf;
for (int i = skip; i < nFrames; i++) {
Dl_info info;
if (dladdr(callstack[i], &info)) {
char *demangled = NULL;
int status;
demangled = abi::__cxa_demangle(info.dli_sname, NULL, 0, &status);
std::snprintf(
buf,
sizeof(buf),
"%-3d %*p %s + %zd\n",
i,
(int)(2 + sizeof(void*) * 2),
callstack[i],
status == 0 ? demangled : info.dli_sname,
(char *)callstack[i] - (char *)info.dli_saddr
);
free(demangled);
} else {
std::snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%-3d %*p\n",
i, (int)(2 + sizeof(void*) * 2), callstack[i]);
}
trace_buf << buf;
std::snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%s\n", symbols[i]);
trace_buf << buf;
}
free(symbols);
if (nFrames == nMaxFrames)
trace_buf << "[truncated]\n";
return trace_buf.str();
}
void my_func_2(void) {
std::cout << backtrace() << std::endl;
}
void my_func_1(double f) {
(void)f;
my_func_2();
}
void my_func_1(int i) {
(void)i;
my_func_2();
}
int main() {
my_func_1(1);
my_func_1(2.0);
}
Compile and run:
g++ -fno-pie -ggdb3 -O0 -no-pie -o glibc_ldl.out -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra \
-pedantic-errors -fpic glibc_ldl.cpp -export-dynamic -ldl
./glibc_ldl.out
output:
1 0x40130a my_func_2() + 41
./glibc_ldl.out(_Z9my_func_2v+0x29) [0x40130a]
2 0x40139e my_func_1(int) + 16
./glibc_ldl.out(_Z9my_func_1i+0x10) [0x40139e]
3 0x4013b3 main + 18
./glibc_ldl.out(main+0x12) [0x4013b3]
4 0x7f7594552b97 __libc_start_main + 231
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe7) [0x7f7594552b97]
5 0x400f3a _start + 42
./glibc_ldl.out(_start+0x2a) [0x400f3a]
1 0x40130a my_func_2() + 41
./glibc_ldl.out(_Z9my_func_2v+0x29) [0x40130a]
2 0x40138b my_func_1(double) + 18
./glibc_ldl.out(_Z9my_func_1d+0x12) [0x40138b]
3 0x4013c8 main + 39
./glibc_ldl.out(main+0x27) [0x4013c8]
4 0x7f7594552b97 __libc_start_main + 231
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xe7) [0x7f7594552b97]
5 0x400f3a _start + 42
./glibc_ldl.out(_start+0x2a) [0x400f3a]
Tested on Ubuntu 18.04.
glibc backtrace with C++ demangling hack 2: parse backtrace output
Shown at: https://panthema.net/2008/0901-stacktrace-demangled/
This is a hack because it requires parsing.
TODO get it to compile and show it here.
GDB scripting
We can also do this with GDB without recompiling by using: How to do an specific action when a certain breakpoint is hit in GDB?
We setup an empty backtrace function for our testing:
gdb/mystacktrace.h
void print_stacktrace(void) {}
and then with:
main.gdb
start
break print_stacktrace
commands
silent
backtrace
printf "\n"
continue
end
continue
we can run:
gdb -nh -batch -x main.gdb --args gdb.out
Sample output:
Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x11a7: file main.cpp, line 21.
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
Temporary breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffc3e8) at main.cpp:21
warning: Source file is more recent than executable.
21 if (argc > 1) {
Breakpoint 2 at 0x555555555151: file gdb/mystacktrace.h, line 1.
#0 print_stacktrace () at gdb/mystacktrace.h:1
#1 0x0000555555555161 in my_func_2 () at main.cpp:6
#2 0x0000555555555191 in my_func_1 (i=1) at main.cpp:16
#3 0x00005555555551ec in main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffc3e8) at main.cpp:27
[Inferior 1 (process 165453) exited normally]
The above can be made more usable with the following Bash function:
gdbbt() (
tmpfile=$(mktemp /tmp/gdbbt.XXXXXX)
fn="$1"
shift
printf '%s' "
start
break $fn
commands
silent
backtrace
printf \"\n\"
continue
end
continue
" > "$tmpfile"
gdb -nh -batch -x "$tmpfile" -args "$@"
rm -f "$tmpfile"
)
Usage:
gdbbt print_stacktrace gdb.out 2
I don't know how to make commands with -ex without the temporary file: Problems adding a breakpoint with commands from command line with ex command
Tested in Ubuntu 22.04, GDB 12.0.90.
GDB code injection
TODO this is the dream! It might allow for both compiled-liked speeds, but without the need to recompile! Either:
libunwind
TODO does this have any advantage over glibc backtrace? Very similar output, also requires modifying the build command, but not part of glibc so requires an extra package installation.
Code adapted from: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2015/programmatic-access-to-the-call-stack-in-c/
main.c
/* This must be on top. */
#define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
/* Paste this on the file you want to debug. */
#define UNW_LOCAL_ONLY
#include <libunwind.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void print_trace() {
char sym[256];
unw_context_t context;
unw_cursor_t cursor;
unw_getcontext(&context);
unw_init_local(&cursor, &context);
while (unw_step(&cursor) > 0) {
unw_word_t offset, pc;
unw_get_reg(&cursor, UNW_REG_IP, &pc);
if (pc == 0) {
break;
}
printf("0x%lx:", pc);
if (unw_get_proc_name(&cursor, sym, sizeof(sym), &offset) == 0) {
printf(" (%s+0x%lx)\n", sym, offset);
} else {
printf(" -- error: unable to obtain symbol name for this frame\n");
}
}
puts("");
}
void my_func_3(void) {
print_trace();
}
void my_func_2(void) {
my_func_3();
}
void my_func_1(void) {
my_func_3();
}
int main(void) {
my_func_1(); /* line 46 */
my_func_2(); /* line 47 */
return 0;
}
Compile and run:
sudo apt-get install libunwind-dev
gcc -fno-pie -ggdb3 -O3 -no-pie -o main.out -std=c99 \
-Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors main.c -lunwind
Either #define _XOPEN_SOURCE 700 must be on top, or we must use -std=gnu99:
Run:
./main.out
Output:
0x4007db: (main+0xb)
0x7f4ff50aa830: (__libc_start_main+0xf0)
0x400819: (_start+0x29)
0x4007e2: (main+0x12)
0x7f4ff50aa830: (__libc_start_main+0xf0)
0x400819: (_start+0x29)
and:
addr2line -e main.out 0x4007db 0x4007e2
gives:
/home/ciro/main.c:34
/home/ciro/main.c:49
With -O0:
0x4009cf: (my_func_3+0xe)
0x4009e7: (my_func_1+0x9)
0x4009f3: (main+0x9)
0x7f7b84ad7830: (__libc_start_main+0xf0)
0x4007d9: (_start+0x29)
0x4009cf: (my_func_3+0xe)
0x4009db: (my_func_2+0x9)
0x4009f8: (main+0xe)
0x7f7b84ad7830: (__libc_start_main+0xf0)
0x4007d9: (_start+0x29)
and:
addr2line -e main.out 0x4009f3 0x4009f8
gives:
/home/ciro/main.c:47
/home/ciro/main.c:48
Tested on Ubuntu 16.04, GCC 6.4.0, libunwind 1.1.
libunwind with C++ name demangling
Code adapted from: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2015/programmatic-access-to-the-call-stack-in-c/
unwind.cpp
#define UNW_LOCAL_ONLY
#include <cxxabi.h>
#include <libunwind.h>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
void backtrace() {
unw_cursor_t cursor;
unw_context_t context;
// Initialize cursor to current frame for local unwinding.
unw_getcontext(&context);
unw_init_local(&cursor, &context);
// Unwind frames one by one, going up the frame stack.
while (unw_step(&cursor) > 0) {
unw_word_t offset, pc;
unw_get_reg(&cursor, UNW_REG_IP, &pc);
if (pc == 0) {
break;
}
std::printf("0x%lx:", pc);
char sym[256];
if (unw_get_proc_name(&cursor, sym, sizeof(sym), &offset) == 0) {
char* nameptr = sym;
int status;
char* demangled = abi::__cxa_demangle(sym, nullptr, nullptr, &status);
if (status == 0) {
nameptr = demangled;
}
std::printf(" (%s+0x%lx)\n", nameptr, offset);
std::free(demangled);
} else {
std::printf(" -- error: unable to obtain symbol name for this frame\n");
}
}
}
void my_func_2(void) {
backtrace();
std::cout << std::endl; // line 43
}
void my_func_1(double f) {
(void)f;
my_func_2();
}
void my_func_1(int i) {
(void)i;
my_func_2();
} // line 54
int main() {
my_func_1(1);
my_func_1(2.0);
}
Compile and run:
sudo apt-get install libunwind-dev
g++ -fno-pie -ggdb3 -O0 -no-pie -o unwind.out -std=c++11 \
-Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors unwind.cpp -lunwind -pthread
./unwind.out
Output:
0x400c80: (my_func_2()+0x9)
0x400cb7: (my_func_1(int)+0x10)
0x400ccc: (main+0x12)
0x7f4c68926b97: (__libc_start_main+0xe7)
0x400a3a: (_start+0x2a)
0x400c80: (my_func_2()+0x9)
0x400ca4: (my_func_1(double)+0x12)
0x400ce1: (main+0x27)
0x7f4c68926b97: (__libc_start_main+0xe7)
0x400a3a: (_start+0x2a)
and then we can find the lines of my_func_2 and my_func_1(int) with:
addr2line -e unwind.out 0x400c80 0x400cb7
which gives:
/home/ciro/test/unwind.cpp:43
/home/ciro/test/unwind.cpp:54
TODO: why are the lines off by one?
Tested on Ubuntu 18.04, GCC 7.4.0, libunwind 1.2.1.
Linux kernel
How to print the current thread stack trace inside the Linux kernel?
libdwfl
This was originally mentioned at: https://mcmap.net/q/64721/-how-to-print-a-stack-trace-whenever-a-certain-function-is-called and it might be the best method, but I have to benchmark a bit more, but please go upvote that answer.
TODO: I tried to minimize the code in that answer, which was working, to a single function, but it is segfaulting, let me know if anyone can find why.
dwfl.cpp: answer reached 30k chars and this was the easiest cut: https://gist.github.com/cirosantilli/f1dd3ee5d324b9d24e40f855723544ac
Compile and run:
sudo apt install libdw-dev libunwind-dev
g++ -fno-pie -ggdb3 -O0 -no-pie -o dwfl.out -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors dwfl.cpp -ldw -lunwind
./dwfl.out
We also need libunwind as that makes results more correct. If you do without it, it runs, but you will see that some of the lines are a bit wrong.
Output:
0: 0x402b72 stacktrace[abi:cxx11]() at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:65
1: 0x402cda my_func_2() at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:100
2: 0x402d76 my_func_1(int) at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:111
3: 0x402dd1 main at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:122
4: 0x7ff227ea0d8f __libc_start_call_main at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:58
5: 0x7ff227ea0e3f __libc_start_main@@GLIBC_2.34 at ../csu/libc-start.c:392
6: 0x402534 _start at ../csu/libc-start.c:-1
0: 0x402b72 stacktrace[abi:cxx11]() at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:65
1: 0x402cda my_func_2() at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:100
2: 0x402d5f my_func_1(double) at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:106
3: 0x402de2 main at /home/ciro/test/dwfl.cpp:123
4: 0x7ff227ea0d8f __libc_start_call_main at ../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:58
5: 0x7ff227ea0e3f __libc_start_main@@GLIBC_2.34 at ../csu/libc-start.c:392
6: 0x402534 _start at ../csu/libc-start.c:-1
Benchmark run:
g++ -fno-pie -ggdb3 -O3 -no-pie -o dwfl.out -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic-errors dwfl.cpp -ldw
time ./dwfl.out 1000 >/dev/null
Output:
real 0m3.751s
user 0m2.822s
sys 0m0.928s
So we see that this method is 10x faster than Boost's stacktrace, and might therefore be applicable to more use cases.
Tested in Ubuntu 22.04 amd64, libdw-dev 0.186, libunwind 1.3.2.
libbacktrace
https://github.com/ianlancetaylor/libbacktrace
Considering the harcore library author, it is worth trying this out, maybe it is The One. TODO check it out.
A C library that may be linked into a C/C++ program to produce symbolic backtraces
As of October 2020, libbacktrace supports ELF, PE/COFF, Mach-O, and XCOFF executables with DWARF debugging information. In other words, it supports GNU/Linux, *BSD, macOS, Windows, and AIX. The library is written to make it straightforward to add support for other object file and debugging formats.
The library relies on the C++ unwind API defined at https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html This API is provided by GCC and clang.
See also
cpptrace
Cpptrace is simple and portable supporting C++11 and newer. Unlike other solutions it supports all major platforms and compilers and is almost entirely self-contained.
cpptrace::generate_trace().print();
Sample output:
Stack trace (most recent call first):
#0 0x000055fb1305f235 in my_func_2() at /path/to/main.cpp:6
#1 0x000055fb1305f2b5 in my_func_1(int) at /path/to/main.cpp:16
#2 0x000055fb1305f310 in main at /path/to/main.cpp:27
#3 0x00007f648990cd8f in __libc_start_call_main at ./csu/../sysdeps/nptl/libc_start_call_main.h:58
#4 0x00007f648990ce3f in __libc_start_main_impl at ./csu/../csu/libc-start.c:392
#5 0x000055fb1305f144 in _start at ./stacktrace.out
In addition to general stacktrace generation it includes a traced exception object that generates a trace when thrown and allows for generation of raw stack traces that can be resolved later.
More information can be found here.
s/easier/either/how the hell did that happen? – Chumashs/either/easier. What I would need to do with gdb is write a script that breaks on that function and prints out the stack trace, then continues. Now that I think about it, maybe it's time for me to learn about gdb scripting. – Hyperboloid